I think GPs point is that this would never have happened if the league supplying the balls rather than the individual teams. If the teams never got to touch the footballs before play time, they would never have a change to underinflate them between inspection and play time.

She got the job because she was Monica's Ex-Boyfriend's wife.Not because she actually did anything worthy of it.

The bolded sentence may be true, but the italicized is false. She got the job partly because of Bill's fame and partly because of her own qualifications. Reagan was way more popular than Clinton when he left office, but I don't think Nancy Reagan would have been able to successfully run for senate at the time.

She was also a U.S. Senator for New York for eight years (i.e. Elected twice). But of course, that was also a job that she only got for being Bill Clinton's wife and not because she holds a law degree from Yale University, not because she was a professor of Law at the University of Arkansas, not because she was she was on the congressional legal advisory staff in the Watergate impeachment process, and not because she played an important role in organizing the Carter presidential campaign. Facts.

Very true, but let me add that catastrophic failures are not the only time you need humans in the cockpit: Autopilot can have trouble handling even moderately bad weather (as in this video of pilots landing planes in a crosswind). Autopilot technology can't (yet) match human skill in situations like these.

Governance: Yes, another legitimate gripe with non-profit universities. But once again, for-profit universities do it worse. Read the consumerist link I posted earlier. Widepsread misrepresentation of graduation and placement rates. Falsification of grades to prevent students from failing out. Termination of faculty members that failed too many students.

Outcomes: Yep, there are lots of recent graduates of non-profit universities who are jobless. But how many of them went to universities that have campuses with 0% graduation rates? You have to wonder what they point of a university is when it fails to graduate any students. There's also the fact that many for-profit colleges are charging $20,000 - $30,000 for associate'sdegrees. You could get that for less than $2,000 at you local community college.

Private universities are a response to current realities: many low-risk jobs require a paper degree, but no actual skills. Many traditional universities are needlessly stupid and expensive if all you want is that paper. And there is plenty of free money to go around, irrespective of merit.

100% true. But I don't have anything against private universities. In fact, I went to a private university. That said, it was a non-profit, regionally accredited private university -- the complete opposite of the nationally accredited for-profit universities that were mentioned in the articles that I linked to. Private does not equal for-profit, and that is an important distinction to make. This image sums it up nicely.

State-level reform is a step in the right direction, but it will not work as a final solution when nearly a quarter of healthcare spending in the country goes through Medicaid/Medicare or the VA; we need federal-level regulation as well. And regulation at the national level is precisely what has been working on other countries -- I dare you to give me one example of a nation where the majority of health care funding is governed by legislation at the state or provincial level.

This is what you call level? Because if you passed fifth grade math, you'd be able to recognize that as a downward slope.

Sure, the slope in the Reagan years is better than it is the Ford and Carter years, but you can clearly see that in the Ford/Carter years, the only drops in real wages were during the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 oil crisis. I'm not saying that Ford and Carter aren't to blame for the oil shocks (they are to a large extent), but this is a failure of their foreign policies, not their economic policies.

Now look at the Reagan years. What oil crisis did he have to cause a drop in real wages? None? So what does that say about Reaganomics?

And even if you do think Reagan did better than Ford and Carter. So what? The economy under Carter might have been better than Zimbabwe's economy is right now, but that doesn't mean Carter did a good job. A good job on Reagan's part would have been reversing the drop in real wages (like what happened in 74 - 78, according to the graph), not prolonging it for another eight years.

If you think a graph from the source that YOU cited is propaganda simply because it supports a point of view that you disagree with, then you've drunk an entire swimming pool of Kool Aid. That graph isn't just a squiggly line. It is based on real data. It is a fact.

Come on buddy, you want to lecture us about drinking the Kool Aid, but the very same link you provided to "prove" that Reaganomics worked shows that real wages fell almost 10% during the Reagan administration. So yes, the economy expanded, but none of it trickled down. It all stayed in the robber barons' pockets. And that's the problem that the US has been facing for the past thirty years: not a lack of growth, but a lack of advancement for the middle-class.

C++ is a three-way compromise between good object oriented design, backwards compatibility with C, and high performance. Stroustrup has never billed it as anything else.

Of course, the fact that C++ is a compromise between three goals that are often at odds means that it isn't anywhere near the best language for object-oriented design (loses to Smalltalk and many others), for backwards compatibility with C (IMO Vala does better -- YMMV), or for high performance (loses to FORTRAN). But it does a reasonable job of "good enough" on all three fronts, and that is what has made it so enduringly popular over the last few decades.

So, no, C++ isn't the best language for object-oriented programing. It's not even close. But that doesn't mean it is a bad language.

No, the reason this experiment is stupid is that you are taking a subject group that have relied heavily on verbal communication there entire lives and then asking them to do the same task with and without verbal communication. Gee, I wonder which condition will produce better results.

Car analogy: You take a bunch of adults who've been driving for 20+ years and then tell half to drive through an obstacle course while using their feet to press the pedals and the other half to drive while using their hands to press the pedals. The result: those test subjects that used their feet to press the pedals had much better control of the car and completed the obstacle course quickly. Clearly this means that humans evolved feet to press the gas and break pedals in cars.

Gorillas have been seen using tools in the wild. Gorillas in captivity have been taught sign language. Now if there was an experiment that showed that Gorillas that know sign language could teach each other to use tools more effectively than Gorillas that do not know sign language, I'd be much more convinced, as Gorillas are not accustomed to using language as their primary means of communication in the same way that humans are.

Maybe you should follow your own advice then. Fleming was a professor at the University of London at the same time that he was working at St. Mary's, and it was in this capacity that he was conducting the research.